Chandan Kumar Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer to modify the order dated 01.05.2019 passed in ABA No. 2536 of 2019. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without consent of petitioner, the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2019 was passed and it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the opposite party no. 2, accordingly, the aforesaid ABA No. 2536 of 2019 was allowed granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to payment Rs. 10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2019 passed in ABA No. 2536 of 2019 be modified as the petitioner is not ready and willing to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that Mr. Suraj Kumar, the learned is appearing in the court today, was neither counsel on record for the petitioner in ABA No. 2536 of 2019 nor he was present in court on 01.05.2019, when the hearing of ABA No. 2536 of 2019 was going on. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that Mr. Prabhas Ch. Sinha, who was appearing counsel in that case, had taken pass over to call his client and after showing readiness and willingness of the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the opposite party no. 2 through his counsel, the order dated 01.05.2019 was passed in ABA No. 2536 of 2019. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the said amount was fixed on the basis of RTGS transactions which shows that the petitioner had taken Rs. 10,00,000/- from the family members at the time of his marriage with the opposite party no.2 and nowhere in this criminal miscellaneous petition, this fact of receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the petitioner has been denied by the petitioner and instead of petitioner with a dishonest intention by engaging another lawyer has wanting to play smart and wants to go back from the submissions made by him by his lawyer engaged and instructed by him before the court, upon which he was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that keeping in view the dishonest conduct of the petitioner and the fact that he is going back from the submissions made through his lawyer appearing in the record, his prayer to modify the condition of the anticipatory bail ought not be allowed.

Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the fact that High Court is basically being the court of records, where parties need not to appear in person, unless specifically directed to do so and perusal of the record reveals that there was no direction to the parties to remain personally present in the court, the fact that Mr. Suraj Singh was not the lawyer for the petitioner in ABA No. 2536 of 2019 and the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 who was also present at the time of hearing of ABA No. 2536 of 2019 that the aforesaid submission of the petitioner being ready and willing to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the opposite party no.2 was made by Mr. Prabhas Ch. Sinha, the advocate on record, after consulting his client and that the said amount has been received by the petitioner through the RTGS banking transactions at the time of his marriage from the opposite party no.2 has remained uncontroverted as Mr. Suraj Singh Advocate for the petitioner did not question the said submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in criminal miscellaneous petition and there is no justification for modifying the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by this court in ABA No. 2536 of 2019.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous being without any merit is dismissed and the trial court is directed to take coercive steps against the petitioner for his arrest to face the trial.